About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The  Journal of Emerging Africa Scholarship seeks to promote scholarship from and about the African continent as far as possible. Thus, the scope encompasses an Africa-Centric lens when it comes to research with the continent as a case-study or from a comparative perspective.

With its developmental focus, it seeks to provide opportunities for undergraduate and honours students to publish their own original research, masters and doctoral students an opportunity to peer-review articles and early career researchers an opportunity to be involved in an editorial board environment.

Publishable material can come from a variety of sources. These can consist of any discipline in the various fields of social, natural and physical sciences. Authors are welcome to submit from any disciplinary perspective. The Journal does, however, promote Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinary research as far as possible. 

Research Articles: 3000 - 10 000 Words.

For an understanding of MIT research, the following is to aid the conceptualisation.

Multidisciplinary Multiple academic disciplines used to consider a topic or theme from different perspectives. Allows multiple authors to contribute their discipline to a theme and article.

Potential Disciplines can include but are not limited to: Anthropology; Archaeology; Archival Sciences; Astronomy; Biology; Botany; Chemistry; Communication; Computer Science; Cosmology; Criminology; Cultural Studies; Development Studies; Economics; Education; Environmental Studies; Ethics; Futurology/Future Studies; Gender Studies; Geography; Geology; Health Studies; History; Languages; Law; Linguistics; Literature; Music; Philosophy; Physics; Political Science; Psychology; Religion and Comparative Religion; Social Anthropology; Sociology; Social Work.

Interdisciplinary – Generally focuses on specific system problems. Requires bridging different discipline viewpoints to address complex problems. Standard practice involves integration between natural and social sciences.

Interdisciplinary themes include: Sustainable Development and Quality of Life; Education Systems; Health Systems; Economic Growth and Development; Peace and Security; Social Justice; Political and Economic Governance; Knowledge and Innovation; Artificial Intelligence and Automation; Science and Society (Science, Technology and Society Studies), International Networks and Food Security Systems to name a few.

Transdisciplinary – Involves multiple stakeholders (potentially academic and non-academic) to create a new approach to address common problems. Strong problem-solving objectives is key to the research, as the problem is the focus area.

Review Articles: 3000 - 8000 Words.


The journal also publishes Review Articles that do an analysis of the current state of various fields of scholarship. This can be on any field of scholarship and we encourage reviewing the current state of a field of scholarship within Africa's academic sphere and in contrast with the global field of that scholarship.



Book Reviews: 1500 - 4000 Words.


Book Reviews are also welcome and must consist of academic texts. Once again, we encourage indepth reviews on academic texts originating from Africa's academia, but it can consist of reviews of academic texts globally.


Due to the nature of the journal, co-authorships across disciplines, faculties and institutions are encouraged. If you, as author, are not sure whether your topic is suitable for the Journal or not, please do not hesitate to contact us for clarity.

Peer Review Process


All manuscripts are screened by an editor for completeness and compliance with scope of the journal. Non-compliance at this stage may result in return to the corresponding author for additional material or inclusion of required material etc., or outright rejection if the manuscript is not within the journal’s scope. Manuscripts will be reviewed ny three individual peer-reviewers. Two will be Academics within the field while a third peer-reviewer will be a Masters or Doctoral student within the field. The peer review process is blinded meaning that authors will not know the identities of peer reviewers and vice versa. There is, however, scope for the Peer-Reviewers to receive recognition for the work they do if they desire such recognition on either the webpage or Publons. JEAS encourages peer-reviewers to make use of the Publons service.


1. Eligible Submissions

All original research essays will be subjected to peer-review as described below. Editorial or any other invited submissions will be reviewed by at least one editor.


2. Process

 Stage 1: Scope and Compliance Review

All manuscripts requiring peer-review will be screened by the editor-in-chief and an associate editor on two criteria: (i) compliance with the journal’s scope and (ii) completeness of the submission. Manuscripts falling outside of the journal’s scope will be rejected at this point. Manuscripts failing to meet requirements set out in the instructions for authors (i.e. manuscripts that are incomplete) will be immediately returned to the corresponding author with a request to correct the omissions and resubmit. At this stage the submission will not be active.


Stage 2: Peer-review

Manuscripts compliant with stage 1 will be considered active and will be sent by a responsible editor to at three peer-reviewers for review. Review focused on specific aspects (e.g. method or statistics) may be sought over-and-above that obtained in the “standard” peer-review process. Peer-reviewers will be given a maximum time of four calendar weeks to complete and submit their reviews. Peer reviewers provide detailed critique of the manuscript and must also select one of three possible outcomes for the manuscript: (i) accept (with or without editorial revision), (ii) recommend authors revise and resubmit, (iii) reject. Reviews not submitted within this time may be ignored.


Stage 3: Decision

When all reviews have been submitted the responsible editor will make a decision based on the above. In the event of a split decision (e.g. the reviewers reaching different conclusions or three reviewers each reaching a different conclusion) the responsible editor, together with the editor-in-chief will make a final decision. All decisions will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief before communication to corresponding authors is made.


Stage 4: Resubmissions

Authors will have four calendar weeks to resubmit manuscripts returned for revision. Authors will be required to revise their manuscript and respond to all peer-reviewer’s comments individually. On receipt of a revised manuscript, the responsible editor will send the manuscript to the original reviewers. Scope of the second round review will be limited to judgement of whether the authors have complied with the original reviewer's requests and suggestions. This process will be a more collaborative and interactive peer-review between the editor, peer-reviewer and author. Peer-reviewers will be given two calendar weeks to submit their comments and decisions. It is possible to send a manuscript back for a second round of revision if necessary, based on peer-reviewer feedback. The responsible editor and editor-in-chief will reach a decision based on the peer-reviewer’s decisions and comments.


JEAS will reject papers from authors who fail to submit a revised manuscript by the required deadline, and who neglect to request a revision time extension. Authors who fail to attend to all peer-reviewer’s requests for revision and/or who do not respond individually to peer-reviewers comments will be rejected. 


3. Peer Reviewers: Selection, Guidelines and Conduct

Peer-reviewers are recruited on the basis of their own publication track record and academic experience for academics while the masters or doctoral student will be chosen due to their research focus. Two will be academics of the related field, while a third will be a masters or doctoral student in the related field. This will allow for both professional peer-review from experienced hands and also a route for early-career researchers.

Publication Frequency

This journal will be published bi-annually (twice per year). It will be considering submissions from the beginning of September to the end of February for the June issue of the Journal. From the beginning of March until the end of August, submissions will be considered for the December issue of the journal. 


The Journal is currently preparing for its first issue, so it is currently accepting papers until the end of September for the December issue. 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Journal Ethics


This Journal follows the below National Code of Best Practice in Editorial Discretion and Peer Review for South African Scholarly Journals with some amendments to suit the context of the journal.


National Code of Best Practice in Editorial Discretion and Peer Review for South African Scholarly Journals approved by the ASSAf Committee on Scholarly Publishing in South Africa (5 February 2008), and by the ASSAf Council (7 March 2008).


A. Fundamental Principles of Research Publishing Providing the Building Blocks to the Matrix of Human Knowledge


An impressive degree of order has been afforded to a potentially chaotic world knowledge system by the explicit or tacit acceptance by virtually all participants of a set of principles which regulate the publishing of research findings or ideas.


Some of the most important of these are:


  • The reported findings and/or conceptual insights must be original, in the sense that they are the first report of such findings and/or insights.


  • This perhaps most fundamental principle pre-supposes that authors submitting manuscripts containing new findings and/or insights will have had access to the universe of relevant existing literature and will not knowingly suppress the fact that the findings and/or insights have in fact been published before.


  • A key function of multiple peer review is to ensure that the knowledge of peers as to this situation is also tested before publication of the new findings and/or insights. A frequently vexed question is whether there is in fact exact replication of existing information, or whether the context and/or detail of the new findings and/or insights are sufficiently different to merit addition to the matrix of knowledge through publication.


  • Any paper submitted to a journal should be considered for possible publication only if the author(s) have certified in writing that the paper in question is not under consideration by another journal and will not be submitted to such a journal until and unless a final, written rejection decision from the present journal has been received.  


  • Reports must contain, or permit reference to, sufficient detail of the methods and materials used in the study to permit replication in the hands of other scholars.


  • Integrity of reporting requires that no inconsistent data are omitted, or fabricated data presented.


  • The statistical treatment of data must be thorough and the conclusions reasonable.


  • The existing relevant literature must be appropriately and fairly cited; in this respect, efforts should always made to ensure that reference is made to the first report of a finding or conceptual insight rather than a later elaboration.


  • Authorship must conform to the notions of responsibility and credit. Thus, special attention must be given to the first ‘lead’ author (sometimes explicitly shared), and the inclusion in the authorship listing only of persons who have contributed directly to the production of the work at an intellectual/conceptual level.


  • Speculative deductions and postulations must be clearly specified and kept to a minimum.


  • Acknowledgement of funding sources and possible conflict of interest must be complete, and author affiliations provided which reflect both the period of the study and the present situation.


  • While priority is accorded from the date of acceptance of an article, not from its date of receipt, i.e. the peer review must have already taken place, both dates are always given in the published version.


  • Post-publication detection of errors and falsifications must always be retracted in print in the same journal.


  • Finally, there is a strong ‘best-practice’ rule that studies addressing a particular question should not be broken up into a series of scattered short publications but preferably be presented once as a full record of the work and its results. This rule recognises and condones the possible exception arising from publication of short preliminary communications of urgent results.

 B. The Core Role of Editors


While there may be large or small editorial teams in charge of the production of particular journals, and variable designations of the participants, the essential requirement is for responsible and fair editorial oversight, exercised to ensure that:


  • An editorial policy exists and is accessible to authors.


  • Submitted manuscripts are carefully examined with a view to the selection of appropriate peer reviewers (who should be scholars who have not previously co-published extensively with the author(s), who are for this and other reasons free of known bias in relation to the subject matter, the author(s) and/or their institutions, and who can cover, from a position of authority and peer expertise, the topic(s) dealt with in the paper concerned).


  • Reviewer reports are carefully assessed to decide whether, individually and summatively, they constitute the basis for the publication of the article in question, or whether publication should follow if certain improvements are effected and/or further work done and reported on; or whether the paper should be refused.


  • Special statistical and/or mathematical review is sought, if needed.


  • The focus of the journal is protected.


  • Misconduct is detected if at all possible (e.g. presentation of data, graphs or figures already published elsewhere; inconsistent data sets; plagiarism).


  • Errata and retractions are properly managed and made part of the record.


  • All reports and substantive correspondence relating to all published papers are properly and accessibly stored, preferably as part of a well-designed record- and document-handling system.


  • The journal as a whole contextualises reported findings in its editorial and supplementary sections (see above).


This journal shall not accept any submissions from its editorial team for consideration to the journal to ensure complete transparency and any form of potential bias in publishing.


 C. The Indispensable Functions of Peer-Reviewers


Peer-Reviewers (two academics and a masters or doctoral student) must have expertise and special knowledge of the topic addressed in a submitted paper, in order to fulfil a range of functions in the system of global knowledge accumulation. They must always report in writing, with clear recommendations for acceptance of the paper in question, with or without revision, or rejection, as the case may be. They must especially:  


  • Scrutinise the methods and results in terms of consistency, interpretability and likely reproducibility.


  • Identify gaps that could or should be filled to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights.


  • Suggest how the paper can be improved in terms of style, length and focus.


  • Assess the proper citation and referencing of previously published studies (as outlined above the ‘principles’ section), including the critical issue of the originality of the work.


  • Contest conclusions not justified by the results or arguments presented; and ‘place’ the work in the existing matrix of knowledge in the relevant area or field.  


  • Any potential or real conflict of interest must be declared to the editor by a peer reviewer before the review is submitted. All peer reports and substantive correspondence must be retained, for possible later scrutiny, within a well-designed record system out.


  • A list of peer reviewers used by a journal should be published at least once a once a year, and reviewers who default on their obligations should not be retained for further service.


  • Context-bound prior academic examination, as part of a thesis or dissertation submitted for degree purposes, of scholarly work submitted for publication in a journal does not replace peer review in the specific and different context of the latter

Digital Preservation

Journal of Emerging African Scholarship. This journal is in the process of migrating from the Stellenbosch University preservation platform to the PKP PN (Preservation Network) platform.

International Editorial Advisory Board

Prof. Sarah Howie, Director of the African Centre for Scholarship, Stellenbosch University


Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Distinguished Professor of Education, Stellenbosch University


Mr Garrett Eriksen, Adjunct Lecturer for Department of History, Stellenbosch University


Revd. Nobuntu Matholeni, Lecturer for Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University


Ms Brigitte Pegado, Lecturer for Department of Economics, Stellenbosch University

Self-Archiving Policy

Ensure that you know your University's self-archiving policy.

Authors may archive their published article in an Open Access Institutional repository.  Only the original high quality PDF file that was supplied by JEAS may be used. 

However, the following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: “This is an electronic version of an article published in JEAS, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX–XXX”, DOI. 

Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/jeas) may be found. 


This journal programme cannot read the ORCID iD.  Please do not add it when you Register or when submitting a paper.

After Registration, can you Edit your Profile and then insert the ORCID iD, or please send your ORCiD ID, along with the name of the journal to, scholar@sun.ac.za to add to your Profile.

Stellenbosch University researchers/authors can create an ORCID iD here.

ORCID iD is a persistent, unique, numeric identifier for individual researchers and creators. It distinguishes you from researchers and creators with the same or similar names.  ORCID iD is similar to ResearcherID, Scopus Author ID, ISNI and other systems for identifying and distinguishing researchers and creators.